U.S. Government steps up its efforts to track down journalist sources.

A former government official was
recently presented with presented with extensive phone records of his
interactions with James Risen, a reporter for the New York Times and
author of the book, “State of War.”

The investigation concerns a series of leaks, reported by Risen in State of
War and with associate Eric Lichtblau in the Times, which lead to the
discovery of an “extensive,
off-the-books domestic spying program” later confirmed by the Bush
Administration. Justice Department officials confirmed that prosecutors
subpoenaed Risen’s phone records in an effort to ferret out his sources, and
sources close to the investigation indicated that at least one former
government official has already been questioned.

The Times’ source, a grand jury witness speaking on anonymity, said
he was not clear whose records the DoJ is accessing, noting that it’s possible
that investigators could target Risen’s phone records, or the records of the
officials he may have spoken with. The Times also reports that it has,
thus far, not received any subpoenas, though it notes that it’s possible the
government could subpoena its phone company without the giving the Times anynotice.

Justice Department officials served Risen a subpoena earlier this year
January, demanding the sources for a specific chapter in State of War that
details a CIA plan to infiltrate Iran’s nuclear program.

Joel Kurtzberg, the New York attorney representing Risen on behalf of his
employer and publisher, declined to comment.

Risen’s reporting set a climate that helped propel evidence of an
AT&T/NSA wiretapping alliance into the limelight, galvanizing the civil
rights groups to action and setting telcos and the Bush Administration aflame.
The government is currently moving to crush the resulting lawsuits by invoking
the State Secrets privilege, which have the potential of quickly ending the
battle.

His articles – which won him a shared Pulitzer Prize in 2006 – are just the
latest target of a government seemingly intent on punishing reporters that fail
to cooperate. Times reporter Judith Miller spent nearly three months in
jail after refusing to divulge her sources in a leak that identified a C.I.A.
operative, and California freelance reporter Josh Wolf spent over half a year
in jail after he refused to testify before a grand jury and hand over
videotapes of an anarchist
rally in San Francisco that turned violent. In Wolf’s case, a three-judge
panel in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that his behavior was in
defiance of the “long-established obligation of a reporter to comply with grand
jury subpoenas.”

Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press executive director Lucy A.
Daiglish warned reporters of the Bush Administration’s “really egregious”
efforts at intimidation, telling press members to spur technology and “do your
reporting the old fashioned way – meet your sources on a park bench.”

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: The domestic spying program has NOT been ruled unconstitutional YET. Until that time, it is untruthful to state as such. It is also up for debate as to whether the program is a successful attempt by the government to find TRAITOR's supporting the desirers of terrorist wish to harm Americans.

Labels, labels. By that definition, Deep Throat was also a traitor, not a whistleblower.

No, Watergate was about election fraud and a president spying on the demecratic party for the purpose of gaining a heads up on the up and coming election.

The domestic spying program intacted after 911 had a very specific purpose. The purpose was to discover the nature of communications to the U.S. from known terrorist organisation. Basically, they listen to conversations of terrorist calling other terrorist in the U.S. If the other person on the line in the U.S. (A TRAITOR) turned out to be a U.S. citizen, that makes them a TRAITOR. However even if that conversation covered a terrorist plot and the U.S. citizen was found accutally performing the terrorist act, the evedence gathered via the wire taps would have inadmissable in a court of law.

My point is that rules of evidence admission in our judicial systems protects any U.S. citizen which would have been caught in the spy program.

The project would however protect U.S. citizen by giving the FBI, CIA, and NSA the information needed to prevent further terroist attacks.

The bottom line is the program did not restrict any citizens right to free speech. It also did not deny any U.S. citizen the protections of a fair and speedy trial. The program did not infringe on a citizens right to be free.

This program DID allow the FBI, CIA, and NSA to know who was contacting, supporting, and colluding with known terrorist organization. Once we know who is colluding, it is a lot easier to ensure that these people are deported from the country or in the case of a U.S. citizen identify if the activity warrants further investigation.

The U.S. government has been spying on its own citizens since its creation. The big difference between the U.S. and other government is that any information gathered outside the rules of law can not be used against that individual for the procecution of breaking the law.

quote: No, Watergate was about election fraud and a president spying on the demecratic party for the purpose of gaining a heads up on the up and coming election

That was only a part of it...and not why Deep Throat was leaking.The main reason was that (just as with Bush) the Administration (and the Justice Department) had superceded it's authority and bypassed all established checks and balances. This act increased the power of the Presidency to well beyond that articulated in the Constitution (Good King Richard).

quote: The domestic spying program intacted after 911 had a very specific purpose. The purpose was to discover the nature of communications to the U.S. from known terrorist organisation

Again, not true...It was to discover the nature of communications from SUSPECTED terrorist organisations...the difference their is what inspired the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.

quote: even if that conversation covered a terrorist plot and the U.S. citizen was found accutally performing the terrorist act, the evedence gathered via the wire taps would have inadmissable in a court of law

It's much worse than that...any further evidence gathered at a later date which might in some way have been even slightly influenced by the wiretap is precluded from being presented.This forces the situation where the ONLY means of Justice is a Star Chamber, assassination, or Gitmo...all of which are abhorent.The Bush administrations illegal wiretaps actually PREVENT legal action, and force agencies to take illegal action...Stupidity by anybody's definition.